If looking at the lenses, there are two big issues for me: the 300 mm H-lens is much better than the Mamiya 300 mm - …

Markus

Oh no! The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm is better than the 300 mm H-lens. I just bought a Phase One DF + P40+ with a Mamiya 4,5/300 mm instead of a H4D40 because of the better performance of the 300 mm lens. The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm has it's best sharpness at open aperture. I tested at infinty. If you want I can send you the test images.

Oh no! The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm is better than the 300 mm H-lens. I just bought a Phase One DF + P40+ with a Mamiya 4,5/300 mm instead of a H4D40 because of the better performance of the 300 mm lens. The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm has it's best sharpness at open aperture. I tested at infinty. If you want I can send you the test images.

Christopher

This is a very bad choice. H4D40 has no equal in its class, the lowest noise level, excellent quality at higher speeds at full resolution (P40 + sensor + has only 10mpix) Of course, exposure time 4 min ... I guess that you are shooting landscapes. If you can, I will be happy to see those pics. Perhaps you received a defective lens or not functioning properly.

Best regards,Design Freak

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------

I would like to draw you attention to one case. Why do we say bad about the brand Hasselblad lenses, but only those that hook up to the strategic projections combo h2 + Phase One back. Someone who read it might get the impression that "hasselblad" produces a poor lens which is not true. 28 mm lens beats Mamiya brand structures. If we want something we have to do is to compare the compatibility of lenses from the same period. It would be like to compare the latest BMW 750i with Mercedes S500 from 2000. Of course you can but this does not make sense. Let's examine the lens' HCD 28 "and" HCD 35-90. Compare with PhaseOne counterparts. Please note that in spite of all Hasselblad lenses have the whole system (from 28 mm to 300) whose average quality is very high. At Photokina this average significantly improve :-) Gentlemen, we can assume that the true denounced 1,000 times becomes the truth.

YoursDesign Freak

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------

I would like to draw you attention to one case. Why do we say bad about the brand Hasselblad lenses, but only those that hook up to the strategic projections combo h2 + Phase One back. Someone who read it might get the impression that "hasselblad" produces a poor lens which is not true. 28 mm lens beats Mamiya brand structures. If we want something we have to do is to compare the compatibility of lenses from the same period. It would be like to compare the latest BMW 750i with Mercedes S500 from 2000. Of course you can but this does not make sense. Let's examine the lens' HCD 28 "and" HCD 35-90. Compare with PhaseOne counterparts. Please note that in spite of all Hasselblad lenses have the whole system (from 28 mm to 300) whose average quality is very high. At Photokina this average significantly improve :-) Gentlemen, we can assume that the true denounced 1,000 times becomes the truth.

YoursDesign Freak

The reason people like me are effectively forced to compare New Phase lenses with Old Hasselblad lenses, was brought about by Hasselblad themselves: It is because they made a strategic blunder in deciding to do a u-turn on open platforms. At that moment, they seemed to take their customers for granted, which is rarely a good idea.Consequently, having chosen to use the H body and lenses (which i was happy with since 2005) with the Phase backs (which i am still happy with), people like me have no option but to compare Old H lenses with New Phase lenses. I have no real desire to switch systems... i am only trying to do so because Hasselblad has closed the possibilities of using Phase backs on their system. Their new lenses might be the best ever... but i cant know that... If Hasselblad comes out of such comparisons poorly... they did it to themselves!

Oh no! The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm is better than the 300 mm H-lens. I just bought a Phase One DF + P40+ with a Mamiya 4,5/300 mm instead of a H4D40 because of the better performance of the 300 mm lens. The Mamiya 4,5/300 mm has it's best sharpness at open aperture. I tested at infinty. If you want I can send you the test images.

Christopher

I can't comment on the theoretical optical qualities of the Mamiya 300mm lens v. the Hasselblad. However, I have never seen a real world capture from a Mamiya 300mm lens and a P65 at smaller apertures and shutter speeds below 1/60 second that was not unacceptably blurred, even using the best technique and equipment. I have many real world captures with the Hasselblad 300mm lens at 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, etc. that are exceptionally sharp. It appears to be an inevitable byproduct of the vibration induced by a focal plane shutter. I have never seen a similar analysis with 150mm lenses and 200mm leaf shutter v. focal plane shutters, but I would not be surprised to see similar but less striking differences. I use longer lenses at f/11 and f/16 with slow shutter speeds quite a bit, and this weighed very heavily in my mind in favor of using an H1 body with a P65 rather than the new Phase One DF. With a P65, the exceptional resolution is very unforgiving of any inherent flaw in the capture chain, and I do think that a focal plane shutter for this application is a "flaw."

I can't comment on the theoretical optical qualities of the Mamiya 300mm lens v. the Hasselblad. However, I have never seen a real world capture from a Mamiya 300mm lens and a P65 at smaller apertures and shutter speeds below 1/60 second that was not unacceptably blurred, even using the best technique and equipment. I have many real world captures with the Hasselblad 300mm lens at 1/30, 1/15, 1/8, etc. that are exceptionally sharp. It appears to be an inevitable byproduct of the vibration induced by a focal plane shutter. I have never seen a similar analysis with 150mm lenses and 200mm leaf shutter v. focal plane shutters, but I would not be surprised to see similar but less striking differences. I use longer lenses at f/11 and f/16 with slow shutter speeds quite a bit, and this weighed very heavily in my mind in favor of using an H1 body with a P65 rather than the new Phase One DF. With a P65, the exceptional resolution is very unforgiving of any inherent flaw in the capture chain, and I do think that a focal plane shutter for this application is a "flaw."

Interesting.

Then how would Hasselblad V system with manual focus compare to Mamiya 645 AFD3 / DF, assuming high res sensor such as P65+ or Aptus II 10/10R?

Re focal plane shutters and long lenses: I agree that shutter speeds of 1/8th, 1/15th (worst) and 1/30th need to be avoided with longer lenses like the 300 if one wants the best results. This improved significantly with the DF body, but close inspection of files with the 300 show it still exists to some degree. Whether that motion is significant enough to negatively impact a 24x32 print is a separate discussion -- the point is, camera motion is visible over that range of shutter speeds if you look closely even in the newest Phase body. But motion is also visible on other cameras with a 300 leaf-shutter lens used in that 1/8th to 1/30th range if you look closely; not as significant as the FP shutter, but still visible regardless...

My point is this: With a digital back, I cannot understand why there is even a need for any mechanical shutter IF the camera shutter button and settings can talk to the back -- can't the back cycle itself on and off precisely via onboard electronics far more accurately than any mechanical shutter? I do understand the need for a physical shutter in a tech or other fully manual camera or when third-party lenses are used, but not when manufacturer lenses and camera bodies with built-in electronics are used...

Re focal plane shutters and long lenses: I agree that shutter speeds of 1/8th, 1/15th (worst) and 1/30th need to be avoided with longer lenses like the 300 if one wants the best results. This improved significantly with the DF body, but close inspection of files with the 300 show it still exists to some degree. Whether that motion is significant enough to negatively impact a 24x32 print is a separate discussion -- the point is, camera motion is visible over that range of shutter speeds if you look closely even in the newest Phase body. But motion is also visible on other cameras with a 300 leaf-shutter lens used in that 1/8th to 1/30th range if you look closely; not as significant as the FP shutter, but still visible regardless...

My point is this: With a digital back, I cannot understand why there is even a need for any mechanical shutter IF the camera shutter button and settings can talk to the back -- can't the back cycle itself on and off precisely via onboard electronics far more accurately than any mechanical shutter? I do understand the need for a physical shutter in a tech or other fully manual camera or when third-party lenses are used, but not when manufacturer lenses and camera bodies with built-in electronics are used...

It's nice to read thruth statements.

I think it is time for the manufacturers to leave the old design chains and move once for awhile forward with the available technology we have today.

I did do a test on the DF body with the Mamiya 300mm AF lens and it did much much better than when I tried this with the AFDIII body. Now I tried this with the 150 D lens and I could not see any motion but the 300mm I did. Nice data point to see here as to what to avoid when shooting with the long glass. BTW someone asked about the 300mm wide open and it's performance on one of the threads and this lens for a older design is very very good wide open although I try to get it to 5.6 for any focus error on my part.

Re focal plane shutters and long lenses: I agree that shutter speeds of 1/8th, 1/15th (worst) and 1/30th need to be avoided with longer lenses like the 300 if one wants the best results. This improved significantly with the DF body, but close inspection of files with the 300 show it still exists to some degree. Whether that motion is significant enough to negatively impact a 24x32 print is a separate discussion -- the point is, camera motion is visible over that range of shutter speeds if you look closely even in the newest Phase body. But motion is also visible on other cameras with a 300 leaf-shutter lens used in that 1/8th to 1/30th range if you look closely; not as significant as the FP shutter, but still visible regardless...

... but surely they cant expect us to avoid going below 1/80th second... and remember this is with the 150mm, not a 300mm!

If a camera can do amazing things like flash sync up to 1/1600th of a second - or whatever it is - that is great (for those that need it)... but there must be plenty of others like me that like longish lenses, rely on available light, work on a tripod, and rarely work as fast as 1/100th second. My dealer was not aware of these issues, like Doug, they assumed i'd made mistakes first time around, to the point that they came back to me and we shot side by side, with them working the Phase system, on their own tripod. They were clearly surprised by what they were seeing too.

If there are tripods / heads that get around these problem (?)... i simply think that Phase / Phase dealers should tell us (potential customers) how to avoid these issues, rather than letting us run into the sand with them. Logically, theres not much point spending hard earned cash on all-singing and all-dancing state-of-the-art cameras and 150mm lenses - if shutter re-coil is simply going to blur the otherwise lovely and sharp 60MP files: cheap filters can to do that!

My point is this: With a digital back, I cannot understand why there is even a need for any mechanical shutter IF the camera shutter button and settings can talk to the back -- can't the back cycle itself on and off precisely via onboard electronics far more accurately than any mechanical shutter? I do understand the need for a physical shutter in a tech or other fully manual camera or when third-party lenses are used, but not when manufacturer lenses and camera bodies with built-in electronics are used...

CCD sensors require a readout period during which the sensor must be in the dark.

I find it hard to imagine that in 10 years that any cameras will be using mechanical shutters (except for companies that pride themselves on tradition) but for now we are stuck with a small piece of metal flying up/down or inward/outward.

... but surely they cant expect us to avoid going below 1/80th second... and remember this is with the 150mm, not a 300mm!

If a camera can do amazing things like flash sync up to 1/1600th of a second - or whatever it is - that is great (for those that need it)... but there must be plenty of others like me that like longish lenses, rely on available light, work on a tripod, and rarely work as fast as 1/100th second. My dealer was not aware of these issues, like Doug, they assumed i'd made mistakes first time around, to the point that they came back to me and we shot side by side, with them working the Phase system, on their own tripod. They were clearly surprised by what they were seeing too.

If there are tripods / heads that get around these problem (?)... i simply think that Phase / Phase dealers should tell us (potential customers) how to avoid these issues, rather than letting us run into the sand with them. Logically, theres not much point spending hard earned cash on all-singing and all-dancing state-of-the-art cameras and 150mm lenses - if shutter re-coil is simply going to blur the otherwise lovely and sharp 60MP files: cheap filters can to do that!

Scott the Arca cube maybe the best of the best with stability in mind but I have the Arca P1 which is also a rock for a ball head and use a Gitzo 3 series tripod. I use ball heads for the flexibility and here is a great case for going to the extreme on overkill with gear. Tripods and heads buy the biggest bad boy you can get your hands on but Carbon Fiber maybe the best material for a modern tripod.

The reason people like me are effectively forced to compare New Phase lenses with Old Hasselblad lenses, was brought about by Hasselblad themselves: It is because they made a strategic blunder in deciding to do a u-turn on open platforms. At that moment, they seemed to take their customers for granted, which is rarely a good idea.Consequently, having chosen to use the H body and lenses (which i was happy with since 2005) with the Phase backs (which i am still happy with), people like me have no option but to compare Old H lenses with New Phase lenses. I have no real desire to switch systems... i am only trying to do so because Hasselblad has closed the possibilities of using Phase backs on their system. Their new lenses might be the best ever... but i cant know that... If Hasselblad comes out of such comparisons poorly... they did it to themselves!

I completely understand you. But this is not a reason to be biased. If you want to do this comparison, contact your dealer hasselblad and arrange a test. Certainly the equipment will be available free of charge. At least that is happening in Poland.

Yours sincerely,Design Freak

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------

... but surely they cant expect us to avoid going below 1/80th second... and remember this is with the 150mm, not a 300mm!

The effects of the shutter are most pronounced around 1/8th-1/30th with the middle of that range being the worst. With proper tripod/head/technique you can go slower or faster. Again carrying an ND filter combined with the 2-3 stop flexibility you have between aperture and ISO should allow you to work around that range. I suspect if you were seeing issues at 1/80th that your tripod/head/technique were not "optimal" (not saying you were sloppy or your support gear was poor quality - just not optimal).

I'll leave it to the many experienced available light landscape shooters on this board to comment what tripods/heads they've found best and worst.

By the way someone above asked why we were "dissing" hassy lenses... I surely hope he didn't read anything of mine that he read as a diss to hassy lenses. Both Phase One / Mamiya / Scheider and Hasselblad make some decent lenses, some great lenses, and even a few extraordinary lenses. Each lens lineup has its own advantages and disadvantages. In fact I am in the middle of writing up a blog entry about it.

I completely understand you. But this is not a reason to be biased. If you want to do this comparison, contact your dealer hasselblad and arrange a test. Certainly the equipment will be available free of charge. At least that is happening in Poland.

Bear in mind he was not posting a test as a complete-overview-comparison between Hassy & Phase systems but rather evaluating (for his own personal purposes) switching from a P65+ back on his H-Body to a P65+ on a Phase One body. If he was evaluating the option to go to lower resolution/sensors sizes by switching to a Hasselblad back he would surely run different tests, include gear from a hassy dealer and include the two HCD lenses which would then become available to him.

Saying someone has "bias" when testing specifically for their own situation is kind of redundant.

Edit: I've included a fair bit of my own "bias" in this post for humorous effect.

I completely understand you. But this is not a reason to be biased. If you want to do this comparison, contact your dealer hasselblad and arrange a test. Certainly the equipment will be available free of charge. At least that is happening in Poland.

Yours sincerely,Design Freak

I think you have missed the point that i was making... such is the way of forums from time to time: at least i always know what i mean!

As Doug pointed out... i am not trying to prove anything about any brand in particular: I am really not that interested in brands as it happens. I like good equipment... and I buy the equipment that works for me... is that Bias?

I am happy with the P65... it is stunning.I was happy with the Hasselblad kit, and, if Hasselblad had not closed their system, i would have upgraded the body and lenses as better components came into the market, as i am sure they have, but Hasselblad chose to make that impossible for people like me, who prefer Phase backs. Why? Who knows? I suspect they looked themselves in the mirror, assumed no one could resist their well established brand, and tried to drag photographers away from other companies like Phase. This sounds harsh, but it is the way things seemed from my perspective. Like i said before Hasselblad have brought these sentiments upon themselves. I have always thought it was a ridiculous error of judgement: time will tell.

With the current Phase lens line up, incomplete as it is today (for me), if Hasselblad saw the error of their ways and opened the system up again... i'd test it tomorrow.Until then, I'll look at the tools that fit my needs. Not so much bias as pragmatism... at least thats what i think.

Scott the Arca cube maybe the best of the best with stability in mind but I have the Arca P1 which is also a rock for a ball head and use a Gitzo 3 series tripod. I use ball heads for the flexibility and here is a great case for going to the extreme on overkill with gear. Tripods and heads buy the biggest bad boy you can get your hands on but Carbon Fiber maybe the best material for a modern tripod.

Thanks Guy.

I've never fancied the Arca cube... but i'd be interested in any good combinations, that are back-packable and can at least manage to stabilise the DF with the 150mm lens.I hadn't thought to list what i am using:a Gitzo GT3541XLS (carbon Fibre), with an Arca Swiss Monoball Z.... is that the same as you?

I've never fancied the Arca cube... but i'd be interested in any good combinations, that are back-packable and can at least manage to stabilise the DF with the 150mm lens.I hadn't thought to list what i am using:a Gitzo GT3541XLS (carbon Fibre), with an Arca Swiss Monoball Z.... is that the same as you?

Scott

I was going from the Arca B2 to the Cube, the Cube is NOT as stable as the B2, but it's light and a real joy to use

The Arca Z is IMO a surprisingly good and stable head for it's size and weight. I do prefer the series 5 carbon gitzo's

I think you have missed the point that i was making... such is the way of forums from time to time: at least i always know what i mean!

As Doug pointed out... i am not trying to prove anything about any brand in particular: I am really not that interested in brands as it happens. I like good equipment... and I buy the equipment that works for me... is that Bias?

I am happy with the P65... it is stunning.I was happy with the Hasselblad kit, and, if Hasselblad had not closed their system, i would have upgraded the body and lenses as better components came into the market, as i am sure they have, but Hasselblad chose to make that impossible for people like me, who prefer Phase backs. Why? Who knows? I suspect they looked themselves in the mirror, assumed no one could resist their well established brand, and tried to drag photographers away from other companies like Phase. This sounds harsh, but it is the way things seemed from my perspective. Like i said before Hasselblad have brought these sentiments upon themselves. I have always thought it was a ridiculous error of judgement: time will tell.

With the current Phase lens line up, incomplete as it is today (for me), if Hasselblad saw the error of their ways and opened the system up again... i'd test it tomorrow.Until then, I'll look at the tools that fit my needs. Not so much bias as pragmatism... at least thats what i think.

I understand your frustration. But such is life. I like both systems, I have no interest to be for any brand. Evaluate equipment such as it is. If someone writes about the Mamiya 28mm lens is the best, it mildly odds with the truth. And this is only because he is the lucky owner of the equipment brands PhaseOne. Rejoice at his happiness. Has the right to do so. Identified with the hardware. Everything is correct. Why are not the owners of P1 to the manufacturer's claim that it had not prepared for such an eventuality. (hasselblad have right to do) Why does not mention the body "h1/h2" on PhaseOne DF. After all, digitalback is the largest expense and not the body. Simply replace the equipment and stop complaining (body) I know I have a strange way of perceiving the world. But as I do not like something, I do not complain, only to change it. This way you can punish such a producer. In this case it's brand Hasselblad. I do not believe that was profitable to them to open the system. The matter is simple, a world ruled by money. If you're a fan of P1 should move to 100% for this system and the sooner that is done the better for you.Sorry if it offended anyone, this was not my goal. I just wanted to present a problem from my point of view. Phase In my opinion, should be prepared that the external company will perform such a move. And that P1 bears the entire responsibility for the situation in which they found to their customers. (Do not secured, respectively) P1 replace this equipment to customers in the brand new equipment for Phase small fee. Or, suggest a very favorable exchange.My colleagues found themselves in the same situation, some changes to the Phase system, others on the Hasselblad.

BrDesign Freak

Logged

Best regards,DF

-------------------------------------------WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE-------------------------------------------